other one Posted June 4, 2005 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,083 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,827 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 4, 2005 It's called depleted uranium and I learned aobut it from the doctors taking care of our vets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 4, 2005 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,083 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,827 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 4, 2005 because most people don't understand that depleted uranium is 99.6% u238. I am sorry but I won'thave the time to discuss it much, I have a class reunion from 1965'ers in an hour or so, and I'm goin fishing for two weeks after that. So I'll really wont be able to get into the pro's and cons of DU for a couple of weeks. There is a lot to discuss there, but time will make it wait. It is not so important as to get in the way of a good fishing trip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Todd2 Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 It's called depleted uranium and I learned aobut it from the doctors taking care of our vets. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then why didn't you say we used depleted uranium? Depleted uranium is used in armor piercing and other projectiles, not as a vapor, if in fact a doctor told you that he is either mistaken or lying. Your post is misleading at best. You wanna talk weapons, I'm, ready. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think what "Other One" meant was that up to 70% of the depleted uranium within these weapons aerosolizes on impact and as radioactive dust it is easily ingested. In other words, the majority of it does become a vapor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted June 4, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted June 4, 2005 because most people don't understand that depleted uranium is 99.6% u238. I am sorry but I won'thave the time to discuss it much, I have a class reunion from 1965'ers in an hour or so, and I'm goin fishing for two weeks after that. So I'll really wont be able to get into the pro's and cons of DU for a couple of weeks. There is a lot to discuss there, but time will make it wait. It is not so important as to get in the way of a good fishing trip <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What are you fishing for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Todd2 Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 That is not what is published on the matter by the armorers that produce it. In actual point of fact the main reason for using depleted uranium is that it stays together and is therefore a strong projectile used as I said for piercing armor or walls without losing its physical integrity. Doing what you propose, inteionally putting depleted uranium vapor in the air would not only be foolish, it would not serve any immediate purpose. The years it owuld take for the damage to occur would enable your enemy to destroy literally generations of our fighting men. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When a depleted uranium round hits it's target, it mostly vaporizes. It literally burns it's way through armor. It is very effective at penetrating barriers, but it accomplishes this task by burning though, releasing vapor that is radioactive as it does this. I believe some research on your part will show you this is true. I believe that was the point of "Other One's " post also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Todd2 Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 "Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'. Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.'" There are multitudes of sources from around the world that say the same thing. As it forces it's way thru armor, DU ignites. It does this at temperatures of 600 degrees. That is why it is effective but also why it releases vapor that is radioactive. That is indisputable. What is open to dispute is the effects that this vapor produces. If you are open to the truth, it is easy to find, if you are not you will never find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted June 5, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted June 5, 2005 "Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'. Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.'" There are multitudes of sources from around the world that say the same thing. As it forces it's way thru armor, DU ignites. It does this at temperatures of 600 degrees. That is why it is effective but also why it releases vapor that is radioactive. That is indisputable. What is open to dispute is the effects that this vapor produces. If you are open to the truth, it is easy to find, if you are not you will never find it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good post Some people can't handle the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted June 5, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Is sarcasm an effective argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerioke Posted June 5, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 97 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,850 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/19/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/11/1911 Share Posted June 5, 2005 I dunno, you being sarcastic? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sometimes, but not today... so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgolvach Posted June 5, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 110 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,254 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 5, 2005 Reb....some here probably would find away to blame Bush and America for their Grandma's costipation. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts